Marriage is a social and legal institution which (theoretically) binds two people who love each other together until death. Not only does this institution add solidity and recognition to a loving relationship, but it also gives the couple legal standing and various federal and medical benefits.
Some politicians and citizens defend their repressing anti-gay marriage views by claiming that their religion tells them homosexuality is wrong or that they are trying to protect the "sanctity of marriage." Now first and foremost I would like to debunk this ill-thought-out argument by stating that the United States of America is not a theocracy. The government should solely be involved in the legal aspects of marriage. If a church does not want to marry a homosexual couple, that is completely fine and they have the authority to do so, but the federal government should not be able to forbid a minority from getting married. It's as if they said all Asian-Americans were not allowed to marry. Secondly, whether a marriage is pure and sanctified differs from couple to couple. How could one consider a drunken Vegas marriage of a heterosexual couple more "holy" than that of a loving and devoted gay pair?
America was based on the ideas of freedom and justice, but denying a loving homosexual couple not only the right to have a formally recognized relationship, but also the legal benefits that come along with marriage is far from just. Some states have set up "civil unions" for gay couples, but these do not offer the same benefits as marriage and are not recognized by the federal government. Even if they were, history has taught us as a society that "separate but equal" is never truly equal. As Americans we all must come together to strive for equality in our country and that means equality for all, not just the social group that we as individuals belong to. Open minds, and take action
~Curly Jefferson
13 comments:
You make some very good points, and I agree with you: The government has no right to get involved in the personal lives of individuals. Homosexuals are citizens of the United States just the same as heterosexuals are, and no matter your religious beliefs about them, they deserve the same rights as every other citizen. It is unlawful to take away any right from a person, and the right of a person to join another person in marriage is one of those rights that should not be taken, no matter who that person is.
I would have to agree also, the government has no right to ban gay marriage. Our Declaration of Independence states: "...All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
So if all men are created equal, why are we discriminating against homosexuals?
sure all men are created equal but your forgetting an important part of the quote "...they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights..." America was founded with principles of Christianity and the last time i looked the Bible (which in my opinion is more important than the Constitution) says that homosexuality
is wrong and therefore homosexuals don't have the right to be married especially since marriage IS a holy
union. Just because our society is so jacked up today that you can get married when youre drunk in Vegas doesnt mean we can screw up the act of marriage even more by making gay marriage legal.
First of all, it has NEVER been proven that homosexuality is a natural human feeling. There is absolutely ZERO genetic proof that homosexuality is a congenital aspect of human behavior. Due to this lack of concrete proof, there is only one realistic alternative: people CHOOSE to be gay. Since they [homosexuals] made their own choice in sexual preference and ignoring their natural condition, why should we cater to their whims? Why should
we the people allow them to further such an unnatural (and disease-breeding) lifestyle just because they CHOSE to disregard how they were made? Oh, and if all men really were CREATED equal, then why
are there even homosexuals?
I am not supporting gay rights with this post, I am just correcting Yoda. Thomas Jefferson was believed to be a Universal Unitarian, which is a group that celebrates all religions from around the world. You cannot use the word "Creator" and just assume that he is speaking of the Christian God you and I are familiar with.
Quite frankly this argument is so riddled with inaccuracies I am not sure where to begin.
As I must pick somewhere how about the claim that "the government should solely be involved in the legal aspects of marriage." Wrong. The government is interested in one thing: childbirth. Without people the government can not exist and the only reason the government should be involved in marriage is to ensure the population continues. As same-sex marriages are incapable of producing children through any natural means the government has no obligation to allow them to marry.
You try to compare homosexual marriages with interracial marriages. This argument is extremely tired and overused and has been refuted by the likes of the Rev. Bernice King, Martin Luther King's daughter, who has become quite frustrated by those who try to invoke her father's name to rationalize homosexual marriage.
Finally, you paraphrase the idea that "love is love" and thus gays should be allowed to marry. You should familiarize yourself with the concept of the slippery slope before you make such rash and ill-thought out comments. How far would you like to take this? What about polygamy? What about inter-special marriages? You may laugh and say these would never happen, however I would point out that in 2006 a Russian farmer sought permission to wed his cow. (Oh and for anyone who still has doubts I would recommend they look up the origins of AIDS.) As soon as you begin to give one group the rights to marry because of "love" you open up a Pandora's box full of problems no one in their right mind would want.
In closing I would like to issue a challenge to anyone who reads this: please tell me what is natural or normal about homosexuality? It is a perversion of the basic identity of a human being and as such should be given absolutely no credence within society.
I also agree with the writer of this blog. However, i completely disagree with Yoda. I understand that you are religious and agree with the Bible, but I ask you where exactly does the Bible state that homosexuality is wrong? Also, it does not truly matter whether or not the Bible or "God" supports gay marriage. Separation of state and religion is very important. Just because one religious belief states something is immoral does not mean it should become law and govern a whole country. If this was the way we ran our country we would run in to many problems. Some religions believe sacrifice is acceptable, so should we allow it here in the United States? Furthermore, why should anyone be able to deny a person's right to marriage? If you truly love someone you have the right to dedicate your life to them. Popular Christian beliefs are to basically treat others fairly, equally, and with respect. No one man is better than another. Yet, many Christians disagree with a homosexual's right to marriage. Is this not unfair? Isn't this treating homosexuals as if they are not equal? Isn't this disrespectful? No one has the right to deny certain rights to certain groups. A long time ago women and African-Americans were not allowed to vote. Is this because they are not as good as the rest of us? Should we stop allowing homosexuals to vote? Where do we draw the line? Who deserves rights?
I think that both of the opinions stated here are very good, although, i do agree with yoda more. We do all have our rights that are given to us by our constitution, but marriage is a holy thing and gay marriage isnt. I dont get why they cant just get domestic partnerships instead of wanting to make it "legal". Shouldnt it be more about love then logistics? If both of the partners truely love eachother then they shouldnt need to have proof of it.
This is a very difficult subject to deal with, much like abortion, where both sides are very passionate about their beliefs. I have published these comments, because I think they are very typical of what you will see on this issue and is what this blog is about, that is, allowing young people to be able to voice their opinions on issues. I do want to encourage you to always discuss the issue at hand in as nice of terms as possible. We may disagree, but do so in as agreeable fashion as possible.
Yoda: Did you know that Thomas Jefferson (the guy who wrote the Constitution) said "Creator" instead of "God" so it'll apply to everyone? Not just Christians, but people of every religion?
Just because IN YOUR OPINION the Bible is more important than the Constitution, doesn't mean that it is for everybody. Just becuase you believe that homosexuality is wrong, doesn't mean everyone does. JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK SOMETHING, DOESN'T MEAN EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO.
Reagan 08, don't even get me started..
P.S.: While I'm not saying that I believe in homosexual MARRIAGE, I AM saying I believe (not everyone does/has to though.. obviously) your ways of thinking are very wrong.
I wasn't planning on replying to this because I myself don't have a concrete stance on homosexuality itself.
But then I got mad. Come on, people! Homosexuality may be wrong, it may not be...but could we please not try to be so disturbingly close-minded and short-sighted on so many issues?
I am guessing that What If's Reagan's arguments stem from Christian beliefs. That might be a bad move on my part, but Christians with similar views are definitely around, so: there is no 100% proof that God exists, therefore,is only one realistic alternative: there is NO God. You know there is a God (I hope and assume) because you have experienced Him. Have you experienced homosexual feelings? My best friend is a lesbian, she is a Christian, and I know the painful personal struggle she went through when she realized she could not fight the feelings she was having because she believed them to be wrong. As for "perverse" "unnatural" and "disease-breeding"...I can think of a whole lot of heterosexual activities that are all of these things.
Homosexuals cannot naturally produce children, but they can do so with modern science. And what about the billions of orphans around the world who need a loving (yes, it is indeed possibly for homosexual people to give and receive love) family to adopt them?
Also, if i was a homosexual person and was compared to a cow...well, I'm heterosexual and I'm even insulted.
Like I said, I truly am not sure as to whether I believe homosexuality is right or wrong. Mostly I think that love and acceptance for our fellow man should be encouraged, not fear and hate because of something we could never understand. We're all people. If you believe what the Bible says, you know that Jesus preached, first and foremost, Love.
I'd just like to point out something: this argument is not about whether or not homosexuality is "right" or "wrong," and it isn't about whether homosexual marriage is "right" or "wrong." The title, no matter any offensive content in all these comments or in the post, is "Gay marriage ban oppresses a minority." This should be an open and shut case, because the facts are the facts, and the fact of the matter is that the band of gay marriage really does oppress a minority. I'd like to invite you to take a step into a homosexual person's shoes and think to yourself, really think, if the law did not allow ME to marry the man/woman I loved, what would I do? How would I feel? Say it is the other way around, and you, as a heterosexual, were minority. YOU are the one everyone thinks is strange and unnatural. And you find the love of your life but you live every second of that life knowing that you cannot provide for that person as you could have if you had conformed to normality, because a "partnership" does not give you benefits that a "marriage" does. There IS a difference, and the love of each other does not compensate for the guilty feeling you would have if you could not marry him/her for real. This IS an oppression of a minority, and if all oppressions of minorities were justified by common religious views, can you imagine what this world would be like? Especially if for some reason a person who is not Christian took our country into his/her hands? What are YOU going to be oppressed for next because of some religious ideal?
No more comments on this post will be accepted. This issue, as seen by this post, is very volatile. I think both sides of this issue have been well represented. Thank you for your comments.
Post a Comment